If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

British general practitioner Dr. Sarah Vaughan is *also* in effect shrugging
as ADULT VAGINAS are sliced en masse - obviously criminally - as other
crimes against babies are committed by her fellow medical doctors.

The senseless adult vagina slicing is happening there in Britain along with
the crimes against babies...

Sheesh, OBs are KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when
babies get stuck...

Please "steer" your GPs to stop OBs from doing this.

Trust inaction is harming babies and costing money.

See below...

DR. SARAH SHRUGS AS LITTLE PENISES ARE RIPPED AND SLICED EN MASSE...

I wrote:
I question Sarah's statement that it is true that circumcision
prevents
penile cancer.

Sarah replied:

That wasn't my statement. I said that it cut the risk, not that it
prevented it entirely.

To which I replied:

I didn't say you said it prevented it entirely.

British general practitioner Dr. Sarah now shrugs:

shrug We're using the word 'prevent' in a different sense, then. I
understand it as meaning that you stop something from happening
altogether, whereas you seem to have used it in this case as meaning
that circumcision prevents *some cases of* penile cancer.http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...083a7f34c85170

MINOR CORRECTION SARAH: I perceived YOU to have used the word "prevent" in
this case to mean that ripping and slicing baby penises prevents some cases
of penile cancer.

"The American Cancer Society issued a five part advisory statement on penile
cancer in June 1999. Circumcision is not considered to be beneficial in
preventing or reducing the risk of penile cancer..."

"Abraham Wolbarst's promotional claims that circumcision prevented penile
cancer were false and mislead the medical community for decades.30
Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer..."http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

Sarah,

I am truly biased in this matter - but I think justifiably so.

My own penis was ripped and sliced illegally when I was an infant - most
American babies had their penises ripped and sliced illegally.

For most of my life, I had no idea that,

"One-half to one-third of the skin on the...penile shaft is sliced
off." http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm (paraphrasing Ronald Goldman,
PhD, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

"The average circumcision cuts off what would grow into
about 12 square inches of sexually sensitive skin."http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm (quoting Ronald Goldman, PhD, author of
Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

Most American babies are STILL having their penises ripped and sliced
illegally as American medicine uses the penile cancer scare tactic to stay
out of prison. (I am for pardons in advance for medical doctors for the
reason given below.)

Sarah, shrugging is not appropriate. Blithely saying of the penile cancer
scare tactic "It is true" and not mentioning the American medical religion's
LIES is not appropriate.

Some little boys are losing their LIVES or "just" their penises (that is
some little boys are losing ALL of the penis - not "just" the foreskin).

Rare as death and loss of penis are, they are TOTALLY unjustified when there
are NO MEDICAL INDICATIONS for the mass ripping and slicing.

Making most male infants "just" scream and writhe and bleed is also totally
unjustified when there are NO MEDICAL INDICATIONS.

The next time you think to blithely answer "It is true" in response to a
question about the penile cancer scare tactic, please also offer readers
American medicine's BALD LIES. See "Some History" below.

Anything less just perpetuates the ongoing mass child abuse here in America.

AN EXEMPTION FOR THE ANCIENT JEWISH RITUAL:

IT LEAVES MOST OF THE FORESKIN ON THE PENIS...

As I've noted, I am in favor of an exemption from the child abuse laws for
the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.

I mention this because, coincidentally, the most recent American medical lie
[2004] involves perpetuation of the falsehood that American medicine's TOTAL
foreskin amputation is the same as the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves
most of the foreskin on the penis.

No, I don't think parents who have their babies circumcised are guilty of
child abuse. Nor do I think MDs should be prosecuted. MDs should be
pardoned in advance: As med students they are TRAINED to perform obvious
felonies that are far worse than infant penis ripping and slicing.

Back in 1987, there were NO medical indications for routine infant
circumcision - the American Academy of Pediatrics was on record three times
(1971,1975 and 1983) as having found no medical indications for routine
circumcision...

Also in 1987, a national study by nurses determined that doctors could not
agree as to whether babies feel pain. [J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs
1987;16(6):387]

In late 1987 the American Academy of Pediatrics perpetuated phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology.

It was phony LACK OF MYELIN "babies can't feel pain" neurology. ("Lack of
myelin" is phony neurology because most of
the nervous system never becomes myelinated and unmyelinated fibers are
thought to transmit the most excruciating qualities of pain.)

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS' WORTH OF INFANT SCREAMS AGO...

I called for an end to the obvious mass child abuse and for a religious
exemption for Jews...

In January 1988, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out against all
religious exemptions.

In February 1988, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out in favor of
anonymity for perpetrators of child abuse.

In 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics FINALLY acknowledged that babies
can feel pain.

But AAP cited a study which *repeated* the phony "lack of myelin neurology -
this time to explain why babies resist being strapped down spread-eagled.
(Ostensibly, lack of myelin makes babies stiff - but no explanation was
given for the fact that babies are not stiff when they are sleeping -
which - incidentally - is said to be the reason many circs were begun when
babies slept.)

As indicated above, recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics perpetuated
the fraud that the
American medical religion's TOTAL foreskin amputation procedure is the same
as the ancient Jewish procedure that leaves most of the foreskin on the
penis.

Sarah, it seems to me that British GPs could have a HUGE effect on birth
position - esp.if given The Four OB Lies!

When I again pointed out that you were ignoring obvious OBs lies, you blamed
my long posts (fair enough)...

You wrote:

"No ****, Sherlock. Remember me mentioning that I feel your posts get
very long to the point where the important bits in what you're saying
tend to get lost/obscured? I wasn't kidding. As a veteran of many,
many debates that have turned nasty in one way or another, I can
genuinely sympathise if you've had to put up with lying opponents."

Strangely though Sarah, you indicated that exposing the obstetrician
lies "wouldn't make a difference in anyone's birthing position," as in,

"I'm just not sympathetic enough to spend hours going through lengthy posts
working out who said or did what and what the truth of it all was in
order to comment. That wouldn't make a difference to anyone's birthing
Position..."http://groups-beta.google.com/group/.../msg/c169babf0...

People - particularly young medical doctors - are loathe to help expose huge
lies.

If you don't want to do anything about the mass child abuse and mass adult
abuse (sometimes fatal), then just don't post.

Just hang out here with the ladies.

I will respect that.

But flip me off with another "No **** Sherlock" - and I will want to play
some more. : )

As you might have noticed, my game is simply ending a serious LIFE-AND-DEATH
grisly medical game - for moms and the little ones inside them.

OBs themselves have indicated that closing birth canals FAR LESS than 30%
can KILL.

Sheesh Sarah, your fellow medical doctors are KEEPING birth canals closed
the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.

As I wrote to Olivia Gordon of "Cyworks/nhsFamilyChoice":

I'm biased...

Trained as a doctor of chiropractic, I cringe at the grisly spectacle of
obstetricians pulling on tiny spines with hands, forceps or vacuums * with
birth canals closed up to 30% - sometimes pulling so hard that spinal nerves
are ripped out of tiny spinal cords...

HOW can I stop this grisly obstetric travesty?

I keep thinking...

THE TENDRING PRIMARY CARE TRUST (PCT) "STEERS THE WORK OF GP PRACTICES..."

"The NHS spends public money - your money - on health care,
treatment and **prevention**...Tendring Primary Care Trust [PCT] aims to
deliver
better and more
responsive health services to improve the health of people in
your area. The Trust holds the NHS budget for our local
population of 139,000 people. It steers the work of GP
practices..."http://www.essex.nhs.uk/documents/gu...ring%20pct.pdf

Sarah, DO pregnant women in Britain routinely book with GPs?

If so - or regardless - maybe when your baby gets older you will ask your
fellow British GPs to help stop the grisly travesties?

Maybe you will ask the Tendring Primary Care Trust to "steer" GPs into
stopping OBs?

I hope so.

I'll copy this to the following personnel at Tendring Primary Care Trust
(PCT):

I have had it on good authority from a friend who is a loving mother,
that the most natural, comfortable and easy position was the one in
which she chose to give birth. She was leaning forward, leaning on the
head of the bed, and the baby came out behind her.

Gravity definitely helped - I don't know if it opened the pelvis or
not, but she and several others I have been swearing by this way of
giving birth.

The very sight of stirrups anyway is enough to make me cringe and I
certainly wouldn't see it as a comforting or welcoming sight when I'm
in full labor.

todd, i dont think you are doing your causes any favours using posters names
like this...

c

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
link.net...
This post has a happy ending....

DR. SARAH SHRUGS AS LITTLE PENISES ARE RIPPED AND SLICED EN MASSE...

British general practitioner Dr. Sarah Vaughan is *also* in effect
shrugging as ADULT VAGINAS are sliced en masse - obviously criminally - as
other crimes against babies are committed by her fellow medical doctors.

The senseless adult vagina slicing is happening there in Britain along
with the crimes against babies...

Sheesh, OBs are KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when
babies get stuck...

Please "steer" your GPs to stop OBs from doing this.

Trust inaction is harming babies and costing money.

See below...

DR. SARAH SHRUGS AS LITTLE PENISES ARE RIPPED AND SLICED EN MASSE...

I wrote:
I question Sarah's statement that it is true that circumcision
prevents
penile cancer.

Sarah replied:

That wasn't my statement. I said that it cut the risk, not that it
prevented it entirely.

To which I replied:

I didn't say you said it prevented it entirely.

British general practitioner Dr. Sarah now shrugs:

shrug We're using the word 'prevent' in a different sense, then. I
understand it as meaning that you stop something from happening
altogether, whereas you seem to have used it in this case as meaning
that circumcision prevents *some cases of* penile cancer.http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...083a7f34c85170

MINOR CORRECTION SARAH: I perceived YOU to have used the word "prevent"
in this case to mean that ripping and slicing baby penises prevents some
cases of penile cancer.

"The American Cancer Society issued a five part advisory statement on
penile
cancer in June 1999. Circumcision is not considered to be beneficial in
preventing or reducing the risk of penile cancer..."

"Abraham Wolbarst's promotional claims that circumcision prevented penile
cancer were false and mislead the medical community for decades.30
Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer..."http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

Sarah,

I am truly biased in this matter - but I think justifiably so.

My own penis was ripped and sliced illegally when I was an infant - most
American babies had their penises ripped and sliced illegally.

For most of my life, I had no idea that,

"One-half to one-third of the skin on the...penile shaft is sliced
off." http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm (paraphrasing Ronald Goldman,
PhD, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

"The average circumcision cuts off what would grow into
about 12 square inches of sexually sensitive skin."http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm (quoting Ronald Goldman, PhD, author
of
Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

Most American babies are STILL having their penises ripped and sliced
illegally as American medicine uses the penile cancer scare tactic to stay
out of prison. (I am for pardons in advance for medical doctors for the
reason given below.)

Sarah, shrugging is not appropriate. Blithely saying of the penile cancer
scare tactic "It is true" and not mentioning the American medical
religion's LIES is not appropriate.

Some little boys are losing their LIVES or "just" their penises (that is
some little boys are losing ALL of the penis - not "just" the foreskin).

Rare as death and loss of penis are, they are TOTALLY unjustified when
there are NO MEDICAL INDICATIONS for the mass ripping and slicing.

Making most male infants "just" scream and writhe and bleed is also
totally unjustified when there are NO MEDICAL INDICATIONS.

The next time you think to blithely answer "It is true" in response to a
question about the penile cancer scare tactic, please also offer readers
American medicine's BALD LIES. See "Some History" below.

Anything less just perpetuates the ongoing mass child abuse here in
America.

AN EXEMPTION FOR THE ANCIENT JEWISH RITUAL:

IT LEAVES MOST OF THE FORESKIN ON THE PENIS...

As I've noted, I am in favor of an exemption from the child abuse laws for
the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.

I mention this because, coincidentally, the most recent American medical
lie [2004] involves perpetuation of the falsehood that American medicine's
TOTAL foreskin amputation is the same as the ancient Jewish ritual that
leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.

No, I don't think parents who have their babies circumcised are guilty of
child abuse. Nor do I think MDs should be prosecuted. MDs should be
pardoned in advance: As med students they are TRAINED to perform obvious
felonies that are far worse than infant penis ripping and slicing.

Back in 1987, there were NO medical indications for routine infant
circumcision - the American Academy of Pediatrics was on record three
times
(1971,1975 and 1983) as having found no medical indications for routine
circumcision...

Also in 1987, a national study by nurses determined that doctors could not
agree as to whether babies feel pain. [J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs
1987;16(6):387]

In late 1987 the American Academy of Pediatrics perpetuated phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology.

It was phony LACK OF MYELIN "babies can't feel pain" neurology. ("Lack of
myelin" is phony neurology because most of
the nervous system never becomes myelinated and unmyelinated fibers are
thought to transmit the most excruciating qualities of pain.)

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS' WORTH OF INFANT SCREAMS AGO...

I called for an end to the obvious mass child abuse and for a religious
exemption for Jews...

In January 1988, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out against all
religious exemptions.

In February 1988, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out in favor of
anonymity for perpetrators of child abuse.

In 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics FINALLY acknowledged that
babies
can feel pain.

But AAP cited a study which *repeated* the phony "lack of myelin
neurology -
this time to explain why babies resist being strapped down spread-eagled.
(Ostensibly, lack of myelin makes babies stiff - but no explanation was
given for the fact that babies are not stiff when they are sleeping -
which - incidentally - is said to be the reason many circs were begun when
babies slept.)

As indicated above, recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics
perpetuated the fraud that the
American medical religion's TOTAL foreskin amputation procedure is the
same
as the ancient Jewish procedure that leaves most of the foreskin on the
penis.

Sarah, it seems to me that British GPs could have a HUGE effect on birth
position - esp.if given The Four OB Lies!

When I again pointed out that you were ignoring obvious OBs lies, you
blamed my long posts (fair enough)...

You wrote:

"No ****, Sherlock. Remember me mentioning that I feel your posts get
very long to the point where the important bits in what you're saying
tend to get lost/obscured? I wasn't kidding. As a veteran of many,
many debates that have turned nasty in one way or another, I can
genuinely sympathise if you've had to put up with lying opponents."

Strangely though Sarah, you indicated that exposing the obstetrician
lies "wouldn't make a difference in anyone's birthing position," as in,

"I'm just not sympathetic enough to spend hours going through lengthy
posts
working out who said or did what and what the truth of it all was in
order to comment. That wouldn't make a difference to anyone's birthing
Position..."http://groups-beta.google.com/group/.../msg/c169babf0...

People - particularly young medical doctors - are loathe to help expose
huge lies.

If you don't want to do anything about the mass child abuse and mass adult
abuse (sometimes fatal), then just don't post.

Just hang out here with the ladies.

I will respect that.

But flip me off with another "No **** Sherlock" - and I will want to play
some more. : )

As you might have noticed, my game is simply ending a serious
LIFE-AND-DEATH grisly medical game - for moms and the little ones inside
them.

OBs themselves have indicated that closing birth canals FAR LESS than 30%
can KILL.

Sheesh Sarah, your fellow medical doctors are KEEPING birth canals closed
the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.

As I wrote to Olivia Gordon of "Cyworks/nhsFamilyChoice":

I'm biased...

Trained as a doctor of chiropractic, I cringe at the grisly spectacle of
obstetricians pulling on tiny spines with hands, forceps or vacuums * with
birth canals closed up to 30% - sometimes pulling so hard that spinal
nerves
are ripped out of tiny spinal cords...

HOW can I stop this grisly obstetric travesty?

I keep thinking...

THE TENDRING PRIMARY CARE TRUST (PCT) "STEERS THE WORK OF GP PRACTICES..."

"The NHS spends public money - your money - on health care,
treatment and **prevention**...Tendring Primary Care Trust [PCT] aims to
deliver
better and more
responsive health services to improve the health of people in
your area. The Trust holds the NHS budget for our local
population of 139,000 people. It steers the work of GP
practices..."http://www.essex.nhs.uk/documents/gu...ring%20pct.pdf

Sarah, DO pregnant women in Britain routinely book with GPs?

If so - or regardless - maybe when your baby gets older you will ask your
fellow British GPs to help stop the grisly travesties?

Maybe you will ask the Tendring Primary Care Trust to "steer" GPs into
stopping OBs?

I hope so.

I'll copy this to the following personnel at Tendring Primary Care Trust
(PCT):

But (did I mention?) OBs are KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to
30% when they pull with hands, forceps and vacuums - sometimes pulling so
hard that spinal nerves are ripped out of tiny spinal cords.

Yet medical doctor Sarah is still ignoring the lies...

Some babies die - some are paralyzed - most "only" have their spines
gruesomely wrenched.

This gruesome spinal manipulation is occuring thousands of times per day.
As a doctor of chiropractic, I have a special obligation to speak out.

All *medical* doctors - including our own British general practitioner Sarah
Vaughan - have an ethical obligation to expose obvious medical lies and
thereby PREVENT unnecessary suffering/unnecessary surgeries.

Yet medical doctor Sarah is still ignoring the lies...

This is a massive obstetric CRIME that sometimes causes babies loss of life
or loss of limb.

It is obstetric criminal negligence - OBVIOUS obstetric criminal negligence
that sometimes escalates to criminally negligent homicide. OBs themselves
have indicated that closing the birth canal FAR LESS than 30% can KILL.

I simply didn't believe Sarah when she said there was nothing she could do
about OB behavior because she is a GP.

I still don't believe her - esp. not now that I read about the pregnant
British woman booking with a British GP who is advising against homebirth.

As I noted, perhaps when Sarah's baby gets older and she gets back to work
as a GP, she will start working on PREVENTION.

Perhaps Sarah's employer - Tendring Primary Care Trust - will take action
before Sarah does - perhaps when Sarah goes back to work as a GP, she will
be "steered" to warn women about about OBs are doing...

Tendring Trust spends on prevention and "steers" GPs...

THE TENDRING PRIMARY CARE TRUST (PCT) "STEERS THE WORK OF GP
PRACTICES..."

"The NHS spends public money - your money - on health care,
treatment and **prevention**...Tendring Primary Care Trust [PCT] aims to
deliver
better and more
responsive health services to improve the health of people in
your area. The Trust holds the NHS budget for our local
population of 139,000 people. It steers the work of GP
practices..."http://www.essex.nhs.uk/documents/gu...ring%20pct.pdf

The Trust that employs Sarah "steers" GPs and "spends" on prevention.

THAT is the primary reason I named her.

Christine, I don't think you do my cause any favours by publicly suggesting
that I should not respond to British GP Sarah Vaughan by name when she
ignores medical doctor lies and blithely shrugs as infant penises are ripped
and sliced en masse.

I think everyone on the newsgroup should be asking the British GP why she is
ignoring the obvious OB lies.

I think everyone on the newsgroup should be asking the British GP if she
REALLY thinks it's legal for OBs to lie and close birth canals up to 30% and
keep birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30%.

I think everyone on the newsgroup should be asking the British GP what she
intends to do about the FACT that - whereas SHE learned about the "extra" up
to 30% - many women never hear about it - and those that do have to ASK
their obstetricians for it.

A major obstetric crime is occurring.

The time for "nice" is long past.

Besides, I *am* being nice - to babies.

Sincerely,

Todd

PS I keep thinking about that recent video on Dr. Phil of the woman whose
boy was paralyzed - the midwife was pulling on the baby's head with the
woman on her back. Arrrggghhh.

I wonder what it feels like to have a spinal nerve ripped out of the spinal
cord?

Some babies are having this and worse happen to them as Sarah the British GP
ignores the medical doctor lies and flips me off with a "No **** Sherlock"
and now a shrug.

Medical doctor silence - medical doctor SARAH VAUGHAN silence - THAT is a
big part of what is making it so that women have to ASK obstetricians for
the "extra" up to 30%.

An email from Sarah to Tendring Primary Care Trust - cc'd to me and
misc.kids.pregnancy - would do me wonders and MIGHT kick off some action
finally.

Sarah could say: Todd's right - The Four OB Lies are pretty obvious - and
so are the grisly biomechanics of semisitting delivery.

OB LIE #1. After MASSIVE change in the AP pelvic outlet diameter was
clinically demonstrated in 1911 and radiographically demonstrated in 1957,
the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that pelvic
diamaters DON'T CHANGE at delivery.

OB LIE #2. After Ohlsen pointed out in 1973 that pelvic diameters DO
change - the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that
their most frequent delivery position - dorsal - widens the outlet.

OB LIE #3. After I pointed out in 1992 that dorsal CLOSES - and so does
semisitting - the authors of Williams Obstetrics - put the correct
biomechanics in their 1993 edition - but kept in their text (in the same
paragraph!) - the dorsal widens bald lie that first called my attention to
their text...

OB LIE #4. OBs are actually KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get
stuck - and claiming they are doing everything to allow the birth canal open
maximally. (ACOG Shoulder Dystocia video - also forceps and vacuum births
are performed with the mother in lithotomy.)

"anyone4tea" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have had it on good authority from a friend who is a loving mother,
that the most natural, comfortable and easy position was the one in
which she chose to give birth. She was leaning forward, leaning on the
head of the bed, and the baby came out behind her.

Gravity definitely helped - I don't know if it opened the pelvis or
not, but she and several others I have been swearing by this way of
giving birth.

Lucy,

The uterus uses the baby to open the pelvis (with the help of abdominal
musculature).

If the mother was off her sacrum (off her back/butt) - and it sounds like
she was - then she allowed her pelvis to open the "extra" up to 30%.
The very sight of stirrups anyway is enough to make me cringe and I
certainly wouldn't see it as a comforting or welcoming sight when I'm
in full labor.

Stirrups mean woman-on-her-back/butt generally - which means the birth
canals is closed the "extra" up to 30%.

That's what makes me cringe - plus there is the likelihood (IMO) that being
on the sacrum torques the sacroiliac joint the wrong direction and
NEUROLOGICALLY inhibits labor.

major snippage
Sarah, shrugging is not appropriate. Blithely saying of the penile
cancer scare tactic "It is true" and not mentioning the American
medical religion's LIES is not appropriate.

Quoting me out of context is not appropriate either.

I specifically stated, in the post in question, that I did _not_ regard
the penile cancer scare tactic, as you aptly describe it, as a reason to
circumcise babies routinely. From the post in its entirety, it was also
clear that I was siding with the OP, a woman who did not want her son to
undergo a routine circumcision. I have made it clear both in that same
thread and elsewhere on this ng in the past that I am against routine
infant circumcision. As for the shrug, that was in response to the fact
that we seemed to have had a minor mutual misunderstanding about a
detail of the debate, and was not, repeat, *not* in response to the fact
that the American medical profession apparently considers it appropriate
to leave it up to parents to decide whether to have skin removed
forcibly from their children's genitals for spurious reasons.

The comment on reduced penile cancer rates was in accordance with what
I've previously read in medical sources. Established medical wisdom has
been wrong on subjects enough times before that it wouldn't surprise me
greatly if you were right and the information I'd previously read was
wrong, and, if so, I'm happy to accept that. I am not, however, happy
to accept you quoting me out of context and titling your post in such a
way that it appears that I support a position on circumcision that I
have made it quite clear that I vehemently oppose.

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about
trivial things.

Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is
misconstrued.

Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your
efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned.
Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not
wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after
them after miscommunication.

You know that as much as I support many of the same positions that you
do, that I have to agree with anyone4tea that you are doing yourself a
disservice by mounting what appears to be a vehement attack on someone
who, in general, agrees with you by taking issue with a single detail in
a post that otherwise supports your position.

If it wasn't an vehement attack, you need to proofread your post to see
HOW they will be perceived. If you correctly assessed the situation that
she had agreed with you 90% and you wanted to take issue with the 10%
where she did not, you need to revisit both your strategy and tactics. It
is better to get a 100 people from 10% agreement to 60% agreement that
to **** off someone who is already at 90% if you want to change the
world for the better.

What you said was unnecessarily hostile, ignored her points of agreement
with you, was easily perceived as a personal ad-holmium attack, and
risked losing whatever good will you had with her. This is not the style of
communication that will win the hearts and minds of others, especially their
hearts. :-)

These words are written in kindness in an attempt to help you communicate
your important message more effectively.

Do with them what you will.
Larry

"anyone4tea" wrote in message
ups.com...
That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about
trivial things.

Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is
misconstrued.

Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your
efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned.
Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not
wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after
them after miscommunication.